论文部分内容阅读
目的：探讨重症颅脑损伤患者急救护理路径的实施效果,为临床本病急救护理措施的制定提供参考。方法选取该院急诊接诊的重型颅脑损伤患者52例为研究对象。将实施急救护理路径前收治的24例患者分为对照组,实施急救护理路径后收治的28例患者分为观察组。对照组按照重症颅脑损伤常规急救护理措施进行救治,观察组按照急救护理路径实施救治。对比二组患者入院时和转送手术室/重症监护病房的 APACHEⅡ评分,同时对比二组患者的抢救时间、病死率和抢救费用。结果观察组转送手术室/重症监护病房时的 APACHEⅡ评分为(8.37±2.39)分,对照组转送手术室/重症监护病房时的 APACHEⅡ评分为(13.06±2.93)分,观察组转送手术室/重症监护病房时的 APACHEⅡ评分显著低于对照组(P0.05)；观察组检查结果回复到转送手术/重症监护病房时间为(28.59±8.03)min,病死率为3.57%,抢救费用为(1379.52±348.42)元,均显著低于对照组(均 P <0.05)。结论急救护理路径可提高重症颅脑损伤患者的抢救效率,更有效稳定患者病情,改善患者的预后,值得推广应用。“,”Objective To explore the effect of the emergency path in rescuing patients with severe craninoc-erebral trauma,and to provide a reference for the development of the emergency plan of the disease.Meth-ods Totally 52 patients with severe craninocerebral trauma were randomly divided into observation group (28 cases)and control group (24 cases).The control group accepted routine emergency path of the emer-gency department to implement the rescue,while the observation group accepted the emergency path.The success rate of the rescue was compared between the two groups,while the triage time,the inspection time,the rescue time,the examination results were returned to the operation hospitalization time and the cost of the rescue in the two groups were compared.Results In the observation group,the APACHE II score was(8.37±2.39),while it was(13.06±2.93)in the control group,the difference was significant.In the observation group,the mortality rate was 3.57%,save the cost of saving was (1379.52 ± 348.42) yuan,they were significantly lower than that of the control group (P <0.05).Conclusion The implemen-tation of the emergency path can effectively shorten the time of the severe craninocerebral trauma patients, improve the efficiency of the rescue,improve the success rate of the rescue,it is worthy of popularization and application.